Bhuska is correct, kind of. Im not saying that WE or potential isnt important, but if a recruit is highly talented (i.e. High attributes) i will take him all day unless his WE in 20 or less and a low potential guy. Thus, average potential and a WE of 30 is just perfect for high talent (i.e. High attributes) recruits.

Posted by helgi on 2/12/2014 11:37:00 PM (view original):Gotta go with bhouska on this one. You need all of the above - talent, WE, and potential. Especially at lower levels.

I have heard for a long time, good quality coaches saying potential is key. I have no doubt these guys know what they are talking about (especially bhuska). However, I have never seen anyone provide quantifiable back-up.

The following is a table of my Illinois wesleyan team in Leahy with my recruits from season 95 (3 season ago). This world just rolled over and these recruits are now Sr or Jr*. In other words, 3 years worth of growth. I think my practice plans are pretty common to everyone else and playing time is probably similar to most other coaches (i.e. i try to get young players time with back-up depth chart formations).

Note: Col 3 is WE as an recruit
Note: Col 4 is potential (4=STL, 3=Good Potential, 2=Average Potential, 1=Bad Potential, "-"=I did not scout, unknown potential)
Note: Col 5 is cumulative 3 year average increase in attributes excluding increase in WE and decrease in attribute which a position does not practice (i.e. BLK for a QB)

From what I see between level 3 recruits ("room to grow", "improve his game over 4 year", etc...) and level 2 recruits ("110%","motor never stops",...) the average difference over the 1st three years is only about 4 points per attribute. We know that GUESS adds to 100%, so a 4 point average attribute growth will mean an increase of 4 points in GUESS.

In my opinion, that is not a huge difference. When these guys below are back-up Fr, So & Jr year I would want those guys to have higher talent (i.e. higher attributes).

If I have a highly talented recruit (high attributes / GUESS score) who ends up being a level 2 potential with a WE in the 30's, the table below suggests you ABSOLUTELY take him over a level 3 potential guys with a lower GUESS / attributes. I am defining lower GUESS score by using 3-4 points difference. Obviously, if the GUESS difference in slight, the all else equal, i agree that you take the higher potential, higher WE recruit.

My point, is that Potential & WE and secondary considerations to initial attribute levels and the table below backs up my assertion.

You are playing at the DIII Level... You shouldn't be considering guys who aren't high potential. And you shouldn't be considering guys who have 30's work ethic.

If I told you that I could take the whole pool of DIII recruits, and tell you exactly how good they will be their Senior year (which is the way you should be recruiting), if I just knew their potential.....

And I told you that if I scouted 200 of those recruits, the best ones when they would be seniors, and marked which ones are HIGH Potential and AVG potential (the only two variables you need).

And I told you that I had a 25 man recruiting class... and could get any of the recruits I just scouted with no struggle.

I would tell you that 1 or 2 recruits of those 25 would be average potential.

Of course whether you believed me or not is one thing... but that's what I'm telling you.

There are coaches with multiple NCs who have said they never use scouting visits. So, clearly, it is possible to be successful while focusing only on "talent" and work ethic and ignoring the question of potential. That said, in D2 and D3, the ~4pts of difference in GUESS rating (or any other similar system) that you cite as "not a huge difference" is the difference between competing for titles and being a fringe playoff contender.

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between talent and potential, or choose 2 out of 3 among talent, potential and work ethic. There are recruits with all of the above.

[Note: I haven't coached at D1A under the new engine. Certainly in the old days, player development wasn't as critical at that level, rendering WE and potential much less important.]

If it doesn't, sitemail Reid and ask him how many of the guys he recruited were AVG potential or a WE <40.

Then redo all of your tables.

Here's my team (started in the same span) www.whatifsports.com/gd/TeamProfile/PlayerRatings.aspx and due to the fact I'm a drunk and Yost recruits on the weekend... I didn't even start recruiting a player until signing day, or the day before... and most everyone was undecided. By next year we will be pretty good just being the leftovers from all of DIII Players. Not one of them is average potential.

You have fair points. Slid64er has been playing much, much longer than I have. I'm sure he has forgotten more than I know. That said, im sure he is a fantastic recruiter, practice time maximizer and game planner.

I looked at 3 of his Sr players on Moravain at the start of the current Yost season. That means they have had 3 years of growth just like my guys from the above table. The 3 I looked at are below. The 1st number is their original recruit WE and the 2nd number is the avg increase in attributes over the first 3 years;

Clearly, each of these 3 guys have grown a good amount. If you say they are all good potential, then they are much like my guy above John Evens (TE). John was good potential and 53 WE as an incoming Fr. My point is that through years of experience slid64er knows something (many things) I don't. His guys with good potential and similar WE grew 1.3 points more over the same 1st 3 years.

I think slid64ers player attribute growth is because he knows things to maximize the growth outside of our conversation here about talent, WE & potential. If he signed an average potential recruit, they would likely have grown more than my average players growth of 8.6 over the first 3 years because of what he knows.

Ol' Henry is gaining 7-8 points per core per season. If Henry had average potential, or a low work ethic (Or even worse, both), I'm going to say he is going to gain 3-4 per core.

So you are losing 3-5 points per core per year....

So Senior Year Ol Henry is gonna be a 72/78 OL where if he had average potential he would be about a 64/72 OL That's a big difference for one guy. Now a whole team at those core differences and you can see the situation.

Basically, to recruit an average developing player to get to where OL Henry is his Senior year, he would have to about a 60/65 OL right from recruiting him as a freshman, which we know you probably aren't going to find in DIII.

So... What I said before.... If you are playing at DIII ... You really shouldn't be looking at anything but getting high potential, good WE Guys... There ARE Exceptions, don't get me wrong, but until you can look at two guys and know exactly what their ratings and which one is going to be better in 4 years, chances are it's going to be the POT/WE Guy.

And with sooooo many recruits with close abilities in DIII you can find the one you are looking for.

You are on the right track by looking into the numbers... You just are not seeing the importance of what you are looking at. It's ALL about how good that player is as a Senior. That's what you are recruiting for.

Ol' Henry is gaining 7-8 points per core per season. If Henry had average potential, or a low work ethic (Or even worse, both), I'm going to say he is going to gain 3-4 per core.

So you are losing 3-5 points per core per year....

So Senior Year Ol Henry is gonna be a 72/78 OL where if he had average potential he would be about a 64/72 OL That's a big difference for one guy. Now a whole team at those core differences and you can see the situation.

Basically, to recruit an average developing player to get to where OL Henry is his Senior year, he would have to about a 60/65 OL right from recruiting him as a freshman, which we know you probably aren't going to find in DIII.

So... What I said before.... If you are playing at DIII ... You really shouldn't be looking at anything but getting high potential, good WE Guys... There ARE Exceptions, don't get me wrong, but until you can look at two guys and know exactly what their ratings and which one is going to be better in 4 years, chances are it's going to be the POT/WE Guy.

And with sooooo many recruits with close abilities in DIII you can find the one you are looking for.

You're saying that your recruits who are level 3 (not STL, but good potential) grow at 7-8 points PER SEASON? Who is Henry Johns? Is he just an example or an actual player?

In all the players, in all the seasons I have tracked across all of my teams I have never seen a player grow 7-8 points per year (except WE of P/K) per attribute.

Even slid64er's Moravain players grew a total of 15 points over a 3 year period. Your guy is growing 21-24 points over a 3 year period. That's too much, i don't think that's a realistic example.

Also, may players have significant playing time before they are Sr's which means their attributes are important as Jr or even So.

I looked at him and he grew an average of 19 points per attribute over 3 seasons (6.3 points per year). Not quite 7-8 per year, but 6.3 is still very, very good. I'm splitting hairs at this point. Clearly slid64ers attribute increase per year is very impressive.